In my opinion this is not “we agree lets remove it”. This is “we agree to explore the idea”.

Google and Freed using this as a go ahead because the Mozilla guy pasted a pollyfill. However it is very clearly NOT an endorsement to remove it, even though bad actors are stating so.

> Our position is that it would be good for the long-term health of the web platform and good for user security to remove XSLT, and we support Chromium's effort to find out if it would be web compatible to remove support1. If it turns out that it's not possible to remove support, then we think browsers should make an effort to improve the fundamental security properties of XSLT even at the cost of performance.

Freed et al also explicitly chose to ignore user feedback for their own decision and not even try to improve XSLT security issues at the cost of performance.

▲

TingPing 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Last I heard for WebKit removing it was the only outcome they saw.

▲

righthand 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah all these billion dollar corporations that can’t be bothered see it as the only path forward not because of technological or practical issues, but because none of them can be asked to give a shit and plan it into their budgets.

They’re MBAs who only know how to destroy and consolidate as trained.

▲

TingPing 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I get the frustration but I don’t believe that’s really accurate. It’s not widely used and modern developers don’t see it as valuable.

▲

exasperaited 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

XSLT in the browser was left fundamentally underdeveloped, which is why it is not really widespread.

XSLT in non-browser contexts is absolutely valuable.

▲

righthand 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m a modern developer and I see it as valuable. Why side with the browser teams and ignoring user feedback?

If “modern developers” actually spent time with it, they’d find it valuable. Modern developers are idiots if their constant cry is “just write it in JS”.

No idea what’s inaccurate about this. A billion dollar company that has no problem pivoting otherwise, can’t fund open technology “because budgets” is simply a lie.

▲

shadowgovt 20 hours ago | parent [-]

The dominant user feedback is the hard statistics on how rarely it's used.

You can't trim the space of "users" to just "people who already adopted the technology" in the context of the cost of browser support.

▲

dpark 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“Everyone who uses the blink tag agrees it’s critical functionality.”

▲

righthand 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes excellent way to continue to diminish users of tech you don’t agree with.

“The people who actually use it are wrong and don’t matter!”

	▲	shadowgovt 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not personally in the business of maintaining a browser. But if I were, and I were looking to decrease cost of maintenance, "This entire rendering framework that supports a 0.02% use case" would be an outlier for chopping-block consideration. Not all corner-case features match that combination of cost-to-maintain and adoption (after, what, decades at this point?). We wouldn't be arguing the point if the feature in question were fax machine support, right?